masters degree in psychology... (that explains a lot) he should of stuck with his catechism.

He was basically saying that ANY MARRIAGE has faults and probably has impediments that can justify nullifying it.

O goodie!!!! You mean, I can get out of my marriage now?

Why even bother getting married! It probably won't work out anyway. Why don't you just live together for as long as it, you know, feels like its working?

Sorry PGA... I rarely resort to sarcasm, but this one just really got me.

THAT'S IT! :-)

He was basically saying that ANY MARRIAGE has faults and probably has impediments that can justify nullifying it.

Evidently his coursework did not include that line about 'being perfect as My heavenly Father is perfect.' Maybe he should re-take NT101.

...Chicago

Well, PGA, if the 'divorce' proposal is not a change in doctrine, then why did Cardinal Mueller call it a manifestation of a Christological heresy?

BTW, does hypothetically being able to go to Communion before, during and after five divorces sound like the hermeneutic of continuity to you?

Do you agree with St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More who died rather than accept a dishonest and immoral contradiction betraying the indissolubility of marriage?

St. Thomas More died rather than swear his belief in limits on Papal authority. Each annulment is not infallible, and More wanted one for the King but not at the cost of rebellion against Rome, even though Rome had fallen under a heavy Spanish influence at the time.

Nobody expects the dogma of indissolubility of marriage to be overturned.

What may be discipline, and not dogma, is canon 915, the requirement on someone, perhaps the minister, perhaps the bishop, not to admit to Holy Communion to "those...obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". It certainly seems like discipline, but it is an ancient discipline - perhaps it is doctrine always taught? Some people might argue that it is dogma. But so many bishops have spoken against it in the last 10 years, that we would have expected the dogma to be produced by its defenders. Or, at least, an argument that this is doctrine always taught. But instead, they keep talking about canon 915. And then there is the interpretation of canon 915--manifest sin, obstinate persistence.

Another thing which may be discipline, and not dogma, is the process for granting an annulment. Is it doctrine always taught that there be two courts which need to reach the same verdict, with an appeal to Rome? Doesn't seem it.

I don't like any of these proposed disciplinary innovations because they seem to make marriage harder - the Church wielding the sword of damnation over both spouses seems to be a good incentive to overlook the raised toilet seat, for the 1000th time, and tough it out. But this is "I don't like".

Now there may be other, more controversial proposals - like allowing for divorce and living together afterward in sin with a penitential path, as long as a bishop signs a letter or something. One anonymous priest I know, and trust, believes that this will not be possible, and the Pope will be prevented from doing this. If this is the faith, then surely he will be prevented. If it is not the faith, then why should I be troubled if he is not prevented? Why should it seem that the world is ending just now, 2015 years after the Incarnation? Hasn't it always seemed that way, in all the generations that have come before?

Who am I to judge the Church? Who am I to judge the Pope? God did found the Church and granted to Peter and his successors the charisms He deigned to grant to Peter and his successors for the salvation of our souls. Let us rejoice in His love for us made manifest in His providing the vicar He wished to provide, and let God handle the details He has not yet clarified to us.

Chris:

I think I already brought that point forward, but all seems to be taken in relative in this world these days. God help us and thank you.

You know, I was thinking about the Cardinal Kasper proposal and it seems to me the reason that Cardinal Mueller called it heretical is because although it seems on the surface to be a disciplinary change, what it really involves is separating orthodoxy from orthopraxis which is schizophrenic (and heretical).

There are two dogmas of the Catholic faith involved here:

1) a valid marriage is indissoluble
2) one must be in a state of grace to receive Communion

If the Pope were to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, then he would be saying either of these two things:

1) that being divorced and remarried is no longer a grave sin for Catholics, or
2) one does not need to be in a state of grace to receive Communion.

There is no third possibility.

While the Pope, as Cardinal Burke has said, possesses the fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) in the Church, he does not have supreme power, because the power of the pope is limited by the law of God and the dogmas of the Faith. He doesn't have the power to change the laws of God or the dogmas of the Faith.

The pope does not have the power to give some Catholics permission to live in a way that contradicts the words of Christ Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Cardinal Mueller has explained that there cannot be any contradiction between theory and practice, no separation between Truth and Life, no separation between lex credendi and lex vivendi.

St. Thomas More died rather than swear his belief in limits on Papal authority. Each annulment is not infallible, and More wanted one for the King but not at the cost of rebellion against Rome, even though Rome had fallen under a heavy Spanish influence at the time.

Nobody expects the dogma of indissolubility of marriage to be overturned.

What may be discipline, and not dogma, is canon 915, the requirement on someone, perhaps the minister, perhaps the bishop, not to admit to Holy Communion to "those...obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". It certainly seems like discipline, but it is an ancient discipline - perhaps it is doctrine always taught? Some people might argue that it is dogma. But so many bishops have spoken against it in the last 10 years, that we would have expected the dogma to be produced by its defenders. Or, at least, an argument that this is doctrine always taught. But instead, they keep talking about canon 915. And then there is the interpretation of canon 915--manifest sin, obstinate persistence.

Another thing which may be discipline, and not dogma, is the process for granting an annulment. Is it doctrine always taught that there be two courts which need to reach the same verdict, with an appeal to Rome? Doesn't seem it.

I don't like any of these proposed disciplinary innovations because they seem to make marriage harder - the Church wielding the sword of damnation over both spouses seems to be a good incentive to overlook the raised toilet seat, for the 1000th time, and tough it out. But this is "I don't like".

Now there may be other, more controversial proposals - like allowing for divorce and living together afterward in sin with a penitential path, as long as a bishop signs a letter or something. One anonymous priest I know, and trust, believes that this will not be possible, and the Pope will be prevented from doing this. If this is the faith, then surely he will be prevented. If it is not the faith, then why should I be troubled if he is not prevented? Why should it seem that the world is ending just now, 2015 years after the Incarnation? Hasn't it always seemed that way, in all the generations that have come before?

Who am I to judge the Church? Who am I to judge the Pope? God did found the Church and granted to Peter and his successors the charisms He deigned to grant to Peter and his successors for the salvation of our souls. Let us rejoice in His love for us made manifest in His providing the vicar He wished to provide, and let God handle the details He has not yet clarified to us.

THIS.

Said much more eloquently than I could, and basically putting into words what I couldn't.

Neither St. Thomas More nor St. John Baptist would have been put to death today. They would simply have said, "Let's visit the marriage tribunal and see if we can get an annulment. These were probably not valid marriages to begin with."

There is no third possibility.

What, exactly, does logic have to do with this? Can't we all get along better without that dratted 6th Commandment? Divorced lives matter, too!!

Nobody expects the dogma of indissolubility of marriage to be overturned.

Nobody?

Nobody expects the dogma of indissolubility of marriage to be overturned.

But this doctrine could be seriously compromised without being "overturned." It is naive to think that discipline can be so easily separated from doctrine, such an important change in discipline is unrelated to how a doctrine is lived out.

For example, after Humanae Vitae was issued, a number of bishops conferences told their flocks that Paul VI's teaching against contraception was (more or less) a matter of personal conscience. (At least one of these conferences recently apologized for what they had said back then.) The effect was that most of their flock were given permission to ignore what the pope had said, even though no doctrine was ever explicitly "overturned."

One could argue the same regarding recent changes in discipline surrounding the reception of communion - no one has come out and announced a change in doctrine, but the net effect of all the changes in discipline has (some have argued) a less then salutary effect on belief. It is not part of the Catholic faith to think that every last change in this area was a prudent one.

So no, the bishops are not going to come out with a statement saying, "Marriage is no longer indissoluble." But this is beside the point - there could be a change in discipline which has the effect of weakening how people live out this doctrine. I'm a bit mystified why it is being "holier than the Pope" or "less than Catholic" to point this out.